Post removed.

User avatar
NotASpecialSnowflake
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby NotASpecialSnowflake » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:24 am

i was thinking the same thing too but i spoke with an admissions officer from columbia and told him im taking the december test but he strongly advised me to submit them over the break/before rather than january because the applications take time to process. he says you just let them know you are waiting for your score.


My concern is devoting enough time to write my personal statement and balancing studying. I think I'm going to take the LSAT, then get the applications in as fast as possible. But some places I apply will depend on my LSAT score.

blackbirdfly
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby blackbirdfly » Thu Nov 28, 2013 1:39 am

walket wrote:
i was thinking the same thing too but i spoke with an admissions officer from columbia and told him im taking the december test but he strongly advised me to submit them over the break/before rather than january because the applications take time to process. he says you just let them know you are waiting for your score.


My concern is devoting enough time to write my personal statement and balancing studying. I think I'm going to take the LSAT, then get the applications in as fast as possible. But some places I apply will depend on my LSAT score.


Thanks for the info! I can't imagine myself having the time to finish my PS and Why X before New Years. Studying for the December LSAT really just ruined all my plans.

User avatar
retaking23
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby retaking23 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:04 am

bee wrote:
good job! and lol at me being able to keep it together during lg...

which q's in particular did you have issues with in lr2? there were definitely some weird ones.


Question 20 in lr2 is brutal. I still want to cry when I think about it and still can't tell why the credited answer is correct. This is the first time I have not been able to use the negation test on a NA question.

21 gave me a really tough time as well but I did get it right.

Blind review, I went -1 on this LR. I made a TON of mistakes from misreads in two parallel reasoning questions and some silly mistakes from rushing early in the section as well (got a overall conclusion question wrong wtf).

And I have since changed my mind about PT70's LR. If not for q20, I think this LR was pretty standard in terms of difficulty. Sure, the stimuli have gotten a lot wordier but the wrong choices, I think, are a little more on the obvious side, so that compensates a little for the wordiness. Or maybe this is that empowered feeling you get after a review taking over and I'm just kidding myself and I'll still have nightmares about this section tonight.

Anyway, can anyone do a comprehensive explanation of q20?

062914123
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby 062914123 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:28 am

.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
neprep
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby neprep » Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:40 am

bee wrote:i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/

honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.

^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed


This is exactly how I approached it too.

Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.

Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.

(A) fits this pretty well.

User avatar
retaking23
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby retaking23 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:02 am

neprep wrote:
bee wrote:i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/

honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.

^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed


This is exactly how I approached it too.

Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.

Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.

(A) fits this pretty well.


Yes, I've told myself that this "quick and dirty" way to go about it is what I would do if I had this type of question again since answer choice A does (somehow, in ways I cannot even now quite understand) connect the premise with the the conclusion. But, I was not particuluarly focused on making the premises and conclusion connect on this question in real time because this is a necessary assumption. Now this might just very well be one of those necessary assumptions that also happen to be a sufficient assumption, and that is cruel, but the negation test let me down here. I cannot see, even after reading Graeme's explanation (whose analogy for this question btw is awesome), how the negation of A makes the argument fall apart. It is a sufficient assumption. I do see that much from choice A. But why exactly is this necessary?

Edit: Whatever the case, the other choices obviously suck, so this one does, 100%, yield to elimination.

User avatar
neprep
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby neprep » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:31 am

retaking23 wrote:
neprep wrote:
bee wrote:i tried to write out a detailed, nuanced answer but i just ended up getting tangled in the minutiae and confusing myself, lol. here's a great explanation: http://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat- ... ng-2/q-20/

honestly, i didnt do anything near this detailed on the test. i treat every assumption q the same way--find the conclusion, ID the premises, spot the flaw/gap, find the ac that connects the conclusion with the flaw/gap. in this case, i saw that there was a bunch of blather about data, and then a random, seemingly unconnected conclusion about how "this data obviously can't explain the origin of the prohibitions." we were missing a reason WHY this data couldn't, and A was the only AC that even approached this.

^ quick and dirty way of doing it, success not guaranteed


This is exactly how I approached it too.

Conclusion: Data cannot explain origin of prohibitions. Why (Premise): Those who made the prohibitions didn't have access to data.

Pre-phrase: In order to explain the origin, the people who made the prohibitions must have access to data about its effects.

(A) fits this pretty well.


Yes, I've told myself that this "quick and dirty" way to go about it is what I would do if I had this type of question again since answer choice A does (somehow, in ways I cannot even now quite understand) connect the premise with the the conclusion. But, I was not particuluarly focused on making the premises and conclusion connect on this question in real time because this is a necessary assumption. Now this might just very well be one of those necessary assumptions that also happen to be a sufficient assumption, and that is cruel, but the negation test let me down here. I cannot see, even after reading Graeme's explanation (whose analogy for this question btw is awesome), how the negation of A makes the argument fall apart. It is a sufficient assumption. I do see that much from choice A. But why exactly is this necessary?

Edit: Whatever the case, the other choices obviously suck, so this one does, 100%, yield to elimination.


The negation is that it is not the case that the origin of food prohibition must be explained with reference to the understanding that the people who had adopted the prohibition had.

If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.

The reason this AC is not "sufficient" might be that the premise talks about the originators' access to the "same data as modern researchers," whereas the AC refers to a general understanding. Even if we establish that any explanation of the origin of these prohibitions is incomplete without reference to the originators' understanding of the prohibitions, it still does not rule out the fact that they might have had a good understanding of the prohibitions without having access to the "same data as modern researchers."
Last edited by neprep on Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retaking23
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby retaking23 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:38 am

neprep wrote:If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.


All of a sudden, I feel pretty stupid , quite satisfied (the type of satisfaction you feel when you can't remember something but magically recall it later), and well empowered, in that order. Thank you for this.

User avatar
neprep
Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby neprep » Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:41 am

retaking23 wrote:
neprep wrote:If this is not the case, then the premise of the argument does not support the conclusion. If the negation is true, and you can explain the origin of the prohibition without concerning yourself with whether those who created it understood its mechanism, then why can't the "recent medical and anthropological data" also explain the origin? The author is claiming that this recent data cannot explain the origin, and thus necessarily assumes that the understanding of the people who introduced the prohibition is a necessary component to any explanation of the origin.


All of a sudden, I feel pretty stupid , quite satisfied (the type of satisfaction you feel when you can't remember something but magically recall it later), and well empowered, in that order. Thank you for this.


No worries! I actually really like this question now, after having delved deeper into it. Every now and then you get this gem of an LR…and then you know it's Christmas.

User avatar
Yazzzay
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Yazzzay » Thu Nov 28, 2013 9:35 am

This is a really weird question but does anyone have some really good relaxation tips?

Obviously with one week left, 3rd take, I'm starting to get nervous and I can see it reflecting in my preptests. I've been taking 1 preptest per day for the past month (minus wkends), and now (for the last week) I've added 3-4 extra sections per day, and I can't calm down at all, until like 11pm when I finally lay down in bed.

Any tips for ways to relax during the day? I'm not working/in school now so that's also why this is the only thing consuming my time...gym/walks/watching tv isn't working.

I just need to remember this test is not going to make or break the future, but I'm becoming suffocated in it.

User avatar
lsatyolo
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:17 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby lsatyolo » Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:07 am

Yazzzay wrote:This is a really weird question but does anyone have some really good relaxation tips?

Obviously with one week left, 3rd take, I'm starting to get nervous and I can see it reflecting in my preptests. I've been taking 1 preptest per day for the past month (minus wkends), and now (for the last week) I've added 3-4 extra sections per day, and I can't calm down at all, until like 11pm when I finally lay down in bed.

Any tips for ways to relax during the day? I'm not working/in school now so that's also why this is the only thing consuming my time...gym/walks/watching tv isn't working.

I just need to remember this test is not going to make or break the future, but I'm becoming suffocated in it.


Go to a movie, concert, hang out with friends, #YOLO, etc. That's a lot of work, mane. Maybe you should chillax this week. This is your 3rd time, you know what you are doing.

User avatar
OVOXO
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby OVOXO » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:17 pm

PT67

LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3

173

I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.

I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.

062914123
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby 062914123 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:35 pm

.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OVOXO
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby OVOXO » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:50 pm

bee wrote:
OVOXO wrote:PT67

LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3

173

I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.

I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.

great job on 67, its an awful, awful pt


Thanks, Bee! I hope we get zones a la pt66 next saturday!

062914123
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby 062914123 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:54 pm

.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
OVOXO
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby OVOXO » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:00 pm

bee wrote:
OVOXO wrote:
bee wrote:
OVOXO wrote:PT67

LR1 −1
LR2 −2
LG −1 (on game 2 fml)
RC −3
RCX10 −3

173

I’m feeling REALLY fatigued at this point. LRs in 60s are def tougher than 50s IMO. Zones wasn’t that bad once you had the rules down and brute forced/hypo’d it — I found its complexity in the really weird way the rules/background was written. “Zones,” “subzones,” “uses.” Once I figured out how all these different things related to one another and to my game board, the game was fine. i don’t think I’ve encountered any game previously so dependent on a few words determining the difference b/w a −0 and a −4.

I’m taking all of tomorrow off. My last few scores have been 177, 174, 174, 173, 175, 169, 173. I think I’m max’ing out.

great job on 67, its an awful, awful pt


Thanks, Bee! I hope we get zones a la pt66 next saturday!

I REALLY DONT I HATE THAT GAME SO MUCH JFC.


i didn’t mind it, even though I made a stupid error on one q. Of all the games so far, I think I hated the bike game from 64 the most.

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Fianna13 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 5:59 pm

PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.

OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/

User avatar
mellow
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:07 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby mellow » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:22 pm

PT 51.5 aka June 2007 (first take except for 1st game)
LR 1: -1
LR 2: -1
LG: -0
RC: -2
PT5 S4 RC as Exp: -0

96/100, 175

That -8 curve :shock:

062914123
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:11 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby 062914123 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 6:52 pm

.
Last edited by 062914123 on Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fianna13
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:05 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby Fianna13 » Thu Nov 28, 2013 7:26 pm

bee wrote:
Fianna13 wrote:PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.

OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/

congrats!!! -0 on 5 fresh sections = super impressive


unfortunately I've seen some of them questions before. :(. But it's a confidence booster. Happy Thanksgiving :D

blackbirdfly
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:04 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby blackbirdfly » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:37 am

PT 30, 173 (LG: -4, LR 1: -4, RC -2, LR 2, -3, RC Exp -2) (from this morning)

I've seen a couple of the LR questions in drills, and even that did not save me. It's an older PT, so I don't know how much its worth. I'm currently debating the worth of this retake since I'm not consistently scoring +175 (I'm the kind of test taker whose anxiety can easily claim 5 points.)

All I've ever wanted was a T-6 acceptance. Please, LSAT Gods...

ljoandc
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 1:17 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby ljoandc » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:37 am

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!

Quick question- I know we're a week away but what do people think of Manhattan RC? I've read the Trainer and a few other books and blogs and it's been pretty useful. Is Manhattan RC worth the buy just for a quick read to see if it'll help for some perspective on RC?

I go anywhere from -1 to -4 on RC and it's a bit frustrating since it's the only section right now giving me that range. -____-

dosto
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:50 am

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby dosto » Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:47 am

.
Last edited by dosto on Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby bbkk » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:34 pm

Fianna13 wrote:PT 63 yesterday with 60 LG as experimental.
LR -0, RC -0, LG - 0 on both.

OMG, FIRST 180! I'm so excited. but I doubt this weekend will be productive :/



Congrats on the 180!!! Perfect time to have it. :lol:

I did 63 yesterday as well but ended up missing 3 on games.. :evil: It was easy and I auto-piloted. Finished in 25 and decided (stupidly) not to double check.

I thought the RC was pretty tough on this PT. I REALLY hate the fiction/novel one. Sea Otter and seafloor spreading aren't easy either. :(

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: December 2013 Retakers

Postby bbkk » Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:40 pm

LAST WEEK GUYS....

Good luck!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dontsaywhatyoumean, snowycc, Tazewell and 1 guest